| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
02 May 2004 06:36:40 PM |
| Object: |
Is a fetus innocent life? |
One often here's from the anti-abort crowd that a fetus, embryo, etc is
"innocent" life.
Even if one were to grant that a fetus has reached a meaningful level of
sentience (which is doubtful during most of pregnancy), one wonders upon
what basis is can be determined that a fetus is "innocent". Here are a
few standards upon which one might evaluate the claim of fetal
innocence. (Other people may wish to include additional categories).
(Judeo) Christian Standard:
According to Paul in Romans 3 "all have sinned and fall short of the
glory of God". Despite numerous apologetics which try to explain that
Paul does not really mean what he says, the doctrine of original sin has
been adopted by many of the thousands of variant sects of xianity on
the basis of this and other statements in the new and old testament. By
this standard we all bear some sin, usually presumed to be inherited
through Adam's fall, which would imply that a fetus or even a zygote
carries the stain of sin (and death) with it. Furthermore, even if one
does not accept the doctrine of original sin, many Xians believe that
one must accept jesus during one's life in order to be saved from
damnation. It is quite clear that a fetus cannot accept or profess
faith in jesus due to its own cognitive inability, which suggests that
it better be guilty of something, for how could a just god punish it
otherwise? Finally, irrespective of these other standards, it could be
argued, for example, that the fetus may be guilty of offenses including
stealing food from the mother, not keeping the sabbath, not honoring or
obeying its parents, sexually violating its own mother (uncovering her
nakedness) and, in the extreme, causing serious injury or death to the
mother. BTW, I'm not suggesting that I believe any of this theological
piffle, but it should cast doubt on the idea that a fetus can be easily
judged innocent, by Judeo Xian religious standards.
Legal Standard:
By the standards of a variety of modern legal systems the fetus could be
judged guilty of one or more crimes. It could be judged guilty of
trespassing within the body of the mother as well as physically
assaulting her at numerous times through the pregnancy. it is not clear
that the fetus has the intention of committing harm to the mother, but
not all laws or legal systems require that intentional harm be shown.
Additionally, some things like stealing, as mentioned above could be
alleged, especially if the mother is unwilling to bear the fetus in the
first place. The fetus could likewise be said to violate the mother's
right to privacy, her civil rights, including the fourth amendment
"right of the people to be secure in their persons". Unwilling,
uncompensated pregnancy could even be seen as tantamount to slavery.
Ethical Standard:
According to a number of ethical standards the fetus could be seen to be
physically imposing its will upon the mother by force. The fetus
attempts to assert its own rights above and beyond those of the mother.
A fetus has no regard for the utility or the consequences of pregnancy
and the impact that it has upon the mother as well as the society. The
fetus does not appear to follow principles such as the Golden Rule or
the Categorical Imperative. It recognizes no duty, nor does it have
concern about the happiness or survival of others. If it has an opinion
at all, it appears to believe that others owe it food and other forms of
free support.
Therefore, on none of these accounts can we state unequivocally that the
fetus is an "innocent" life. However, I'd be happy to entertain (and be
entertained by) any serious arguments for why a fetus should be
considered innocent despite the above statements. This is not to say
that I think that "innocence" is a particularly relevant standard to
apply to a fetus or an embryo or a zygote. But if anyone wants to
discuss the relevance of fetal innocence then I encourage them to do so.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
01 Jul 2004 03:17:29 PM |
|
|
On 1 Jul 2004 11:41:29 -0700, (david) in alt.abortion
with message-id <279983a8.0407011041.408f2527@posting.google.com>
wrote:
Why was our Constitution put in place? Hmmm... To protect the people
of this country.
No, to establish the basis for a government for what is now the US.
What about the amendments? They acknowledge our
rights. How can we have rights if we aren't valuable?
Nonsense. There is no connection between rights and value.
Larry, your problem is that you think I care when you assert "it is
NOT a scientific question." It clearly is a scientific question.
Anyone with more than a handful of brain cells could see that. The
fact that you won't accept it shows how locked in your ideology you
are. How could what something is biologically be a question for
something other than biology? It makes no sense.
Does biology determine whether a person is a citizen? Is allowed to
vote? Is allowed to marry?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
01 Jul 2004 03:22:46 PM |
|
|
On 1 Jul 2004 11:41:29 -0700, (david) wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote....
So humans aren't valuable? So our constitution is baloney.
Care to tell us how you draw that inference?
Why was our Constitution put in place? Hmmm... To protect the people
of this country.
From the Government!
What about the amendments? They acknowledge our
rights. How can we have rights if we aren't valuable?
I wish to retain for myself the right to be secure in my own person,
to be allowed to worship whatever and however I wish, etc..
As have others. Out of plain self-interest they formed a government
to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"
and established "this Constitution for the United States of America."
....
Plus, it describes the woman as a maternal organism - how is she
maternal if the child is part of her.
Before the child was a part of her, she was not a maternal organism.
Once the child is no longer a part of her she will no longer be a
maternal organism.
How can she be a mother if the unborn isn't a living organism?
She cannot be! Abd she is not a mother. She is, maybe, a mother to
be. ("mother to be" gets about 97,000 hits in Google -- check out a
few. A pregnant woman is refered to as a mother to be, not as a
mother that is.)
It just makes absolutely no sense.
You do seem to have that problem.
.....
First, Aquinas didn't regard an embryo as a human being. ...
Yeah, because he wasn't aware of the reality of the unborn - he didn't
have the technology to actually know what was happening in the womb.
Do you really think that if Aquinas was alive today he would say that
an embryo isn't a human being or an organism?
The ancients knew enough about human reproduction to have figured out
contraception and abortion. They knew about conception.
... Second, how
many times have you been told that it is NOT a scientific question?
Larry, your problem is that you think I care when you assert "it is
NOT a scientific question." It clearly is a scientific question.
David, your problem is that you think anyone cares when you assert "it
is a scientific question." It clearly is not a scientific question.
What things are were known long before we had any sort of modern
science.
.....
Again, is whether something is an elephant or not a scientific
question?
Nope. People can tell if something is an elephant without any
knowledge of science whatsoever. A four-year-old child at the zoo can
generally point out an elephant.
How about vulture - is that a scientific question?
Science cares nought about the value of an item. (am reminded of the
scientist who reduced a diamond to graphite -- just to prove they were
the same element.)
....
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
02 Jul 2004 10:36:21 AM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40e46abb.24076983@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 1 Jul 2004 11:41:29 -0700, (david) wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote....
So humans aren't valuable? So our constitution is baloney.
Care to tell us how you draw that inference?
Why was our Constitution put in place? Hmmm... To protect the people
of this country.
From the Government!
Why should they be protected if they aren't valuable?
What about the amendments? They acknowledge our
rights. How can we have rights if we aren't valuable?
I wish to retain for myself the right to be secure in my own person,
to be allowed to worship whatever and however I wish, etc..
As have others. Out of plain self-interest they formed a government
to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"
and established "this Constitution for the United States of America."
...
Was that supposed to be an answer?
Plus, it describes the woman as a maternal organism - how is she
maternal if the child is part of her.
Before the child was a part of her, she was not a maternal organism.
Once the child is no longer a part of her she will no longer be a
maternal organism.
How is she "maternal" if she isn't a mother?
How can she be a mother if the unborn isn't a living organism?
She cannot be! Abd she is not a mother. She is, maybe, a mother to
be. ("mother to be" gets about 97,000 hits in Google -- check out a
few. A pregnant woman is refered to as a mother to be, not as a
mother that is.)
What do you think maternal means?
American Heritage -Relating to or characteristic of a mother or
motherhood; motherly:
MW-of, relating to, belonging to, or characteristic of a mother
Onelook - characteristic of a mother, relating to or derived from
one's mother
Or let me guess - Williams Obstetrics is using Prolypsis or whatever.
LOL.
It just makes absolutely no sense.
You do seem to have that problem.
....
First, Aquinas didn't regard an embryo as a human being. ...
Yeah, because he wasn't aware of the reality of the unborn - he didn't
have the technology to actually know what was happening in the womb.
Do you really think that if Aquinas was alive today he would say that
an embryo isn't a human being or an organism?
The ancients knew enough about human reproduction to have figured out
contraception and abortion. They knew about conception.
Really? Are you that crazy to think that the ancients actually
understand reproduction?
... Second, how
many times have you been told that it is NOT a scientific question?
Larry, your problem is that you think I care when you assert "it is
NOT a scientific question." It clearly is a scientific question.
David, your problem is that you think anyone cares when you assert "it
is a scientific question." It clearly is not a scientific question.
Paul, yourself and Larry are under the enormous delusion that laws are
truth. Laws are supposed to reflect truth - that doesn't mean that
they are truth.
Did the ruling party in Nazi Germany determine truth? Or was the Dred
Scott ruling that denied citizenship based on race true? Or was Ruben
"Hurricane" Carter guilty because a jury found him so? Or is OJ
really innocent because a jury said he was?
What things are were known long before we had any sort of modern
science.
....
Again, is whether something is an elephant or not a scientific
question?
Nope. People can tell if something is an elephant without any
knowledge of science whatsoever. A four-year-old child at the zoo can
generally point out an elephant.
So whether something is or isn't a elephant is not a question for
science? Law could declare that elephants were really human beings,
then?
How about vulture - is that a scientific question?
Science cares nought about the value of an item. (am reminded of the
scientist who reduced a diamond to graphite -- just to prove they were
the same element.)
...
I'm not talking about the value of an item - nice attempt at diversion
- i'm talking about what an item IS.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
02 Jul 2004 04:39:39 PM |
|
|
On 2 Jul 2004 08:36:21 -0700, (david) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40e46abb.24076983@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 1 Jul 2004 11:41:29 -0700, (david) wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote....
So humans aren't valuable? So our constitution is baloney.
Care to tell us how you draw that inference?
Why was our Constitution put in place? Hmmm... To protect the people
of this country.
From the Government!
Why should they be protected if they aren't valuable?
Because they do not want the government interfering with their lives.
What about the amendments? They acknowledge our
rights. How can we have rights if we aren't valuable?
I wish to retain for myself the right to be secure in my own person,
to be allowed to worship whatever and however I wish, etc..
As have others. Out of plain self-interest they formed a government
to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"
and established "this Constitution for the United States of America."
Was that supposed to be an answer?
Given that you refuse to answer any of my questions so that I can find
out how well you understandiEnglish, that is the best you will get.
If you want more, please define what you mean by "value" since it is
obviously different than Merriam-Webster's "1 : a fair return or
equivalent in goods, services, or money for something exchanged 2 :
the monetary worth of something : marketable price...."
Plus, it describes the woman as a maternal organism - how is she
maternal if the child is part of her.
Before the child was a part of her, she was not a maternal organism.
Once the child is no longer a part of her she will no longer be a
maternal organism.
How is she "maternal" if she isn't a mother?
Maternal: of, relating to, belonging to, or characteristic of a
mother. Since pregnancy is that which creates a mother it relates to
a mother. DUH!!!
How can she be a mother if the unborn isn't a living organism?
She cannot be! Abd she is not a mother. She is, maybe, a mother to
be. ("mother to be" gets about 97,000 hits in Google -- check out a
few. A pregnant woman is refered to as a mother to be, not as a
mother that is.)
What do you think maternal means?
See above. "Relating to" includes the creation of.
....
First, Aquinas didn't regard an embryo as a human being. ...
Yeah, because he wasn't aware of the reality of the unborn - he didn't
have the technology to actually know what was happening in the womb.
Do you really think that if Aquinas was alive today he would say that
an embryo isn't a human being or an organism?
The ancients knew enough about human reproduction to have figured out
contraception and abortion. They knew about conception.
Really? Are you that crazy to think that the ancients actually
understand reproduction?
They seem to have understood it far better than you do.
... Second, how
many times have you been told that it is NOT a scientific question?
Larry, your problem is that you think I care when you assert "it is
NOT a scientific question." It clearly is a scientific question.
David, your problem is that you think anyone cares when you assert "it
is a scientific question." It clearly is not a scientific question.
Paul, yourself and Larry are under the enormous delusion that laws are
truth.
Yet another lie. I am under no such delusion.
Laws are supposed to reflect truth - that doesn't mean that
they are truth....
And when every legal jurisdiction holds the same view it is quite
probable that that particular view is the truth.
.....
Again, is whether something is an elephant or not a scientific
question?
Nope. People can tell if something is an elephant without any
knowledge of science whatsoever. A four-year-old child at the zoo can
generally point out an elephant.
So whether something is or isn't a elephant is not a question for
science? Law could declare that elephants were really human beings,
then?
What is this new kick of yours about the law? Why can you not address
what I write instead. I said a four-year-old can point out an
Elephant. What an elephant is or what is an elephant is not a
question that requires science to answer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D4" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
02 Jul 2004 04:48:06 PM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) said:
On 2 Jul 2004 08:36:21 -0700, (david) wrote:
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40e46abb.24076983@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 1 Jul 2004 11:41:29 -0700, (david) wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote....
So humans aren't valuable? So our constitution is baloney.
Care to tell us how you draw that inference?
Why was our Constitution put in place? Hmmm... To protect the people
of this country.
From the Government!
Why should they be protected if they aren't valuable?
Because they do not want the government interfering with their lives.
And the consent of the governed is valuable to those who get their
jollies governing, if they don't want to govern from behind walls and
guns.
Jim07D4
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
30 Jun 2004 11:45:13 PM |
|
|
david <> wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40e1d918.7744485@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 29 Jun 2004 13:05:28 -0700, (david) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40dc86d1.52445924@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 25 Jun 2004 11:58:39 -0700, (david) wrote:
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote....
They couldn't happen unless an egg were fertilised. The original statement
of Dr Manner's was: '"When a human sperm fertilizes a human egg, the result
is a human being -- from the moment of conception.' As you say, the
hydatidiform mole is a mass, not a human being, so you apparently agree that
not all fertilised eggs are human beings from the moment of conception.
These moles are rare, yes (about 1 in 1,000),....
As I said earlier - it would be my guess that Dr. Manner was speaking
generally - and not taking the time to go into atypical and rare cases
where two sperm fertilize an egg without its own set of genetic
material - the egg is thought to not have genetic material -
There are no exceptions to "born, human, and alive."
Are you still trying to learn how to form an argument instead of just
asserting your position over and over and over and over again.
Sum total of exceptions posted by David:
*SIGH*
So you are still trying to learn how to form an argument? Maybe you
could take a logic 101 class, learn something, and come back with an
actual argument instead of assertion after assertion.
Where is YOUR "actual argument"?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
26 Jun 2004 02:15:12 PM |
|
|
On 25 Jun 2004 11:58:39 -0700, (david) wrote:
I don't tolerate people who assert ridiculous assertions and expect me
to accept them.
SPROING!!!!!
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
15 Jun 2004 03:08:38 PM |
|
|
"david" <gringo98@aol.com> wrote in message
news:279983a8.0406151022.53aec505@posting.google.com...
I wouldn't call hydatidiform moles human
beings unless I saw evidence that they were - my guess is that neither
wouldn't scientists - they seem to be genetic abnormalities where
something went wrong in the process of conception that prevents the
sperm and egg from correctly joining and becoming a zygote.
We now know of several instances of medical chimeras - that is to say,
single individuals who are the product of two perfectly normal embryos
fusing by accident early in gestation. These individuals can develop quite
normally - in fact one Brazilian woman wasn't discovered to be a chimera
until she was going to have surgery and blood tests "proved" that she
couldn't be the mother of the children she had given birth to.
So here we have two human beings, according to you. No genetic
abnormalities in either of them. Neither of them died. Not one single cell
of either ceased to exist. Where, then, did one of those human beings go?
*Which* one went away? How do you know?
Isn't it far more reasonable to recognize that embryos are nature's attempts
at making a human being but not human beings yet? Just like acorns are not
oak trees, and when I use fertilized eggs to make a cake, I'm not having
chicken for dessert.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
16 Jun 2004 09:03:26 AM |
|
|
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<aHIzc.27207$Hg2.26881@attbi_s04>...
"david" <gringo98@aol.com> wrote in message
news:279983a8.0406151022.53aec505@posting.google.com...
I wouldn't call hydatidiform moles human
beings unless I saw evidence that they were - my guess is that neither
wouldn't scientists - they seem to be genetic abnormalities where
something went wrong in the process of conception that prevents the
sperm and egg from correctly joining and becoming a zygote.
We now know of several instances of medical chimeras - that is to say,
single individuals who are the product of two perfectly normal embryos
fusing by accident early in gestation. These individuals can develop quite
normally - in fact one Brazilian woman wasn't discovered to be a chimera
until she was going to have surgery and blood tests "proved" that she
couldn't be the mother of the children she had given birth to.
So here we have two human beings, according to you. No genetic
abnormalities in either of them. Neither of them died. Not one single cell
of either ceased to exist. Where, then, did one of those human beings go?
*Which* one went away? How do you know?
Isn't it far more reasonable to recognize that embryos are nature's attempts
at making a human being but not human beings yet? Just like acorns are not
oak trees, and when I use fertilized eggs to make a cake, I'm not having
chicken for dessert.
Two human beings according to me? Since when? You are again making
up a position for me and then arguing against it. It seems that in
the chimera case described above (an actual link or reference would be
nice) two human beings came together to form one human being. Those
are the facts of science. It happens. What's your point? Twinning
and chimeras are rare things that happen in the development of human
beings that most of society is unfamiliar with but how does that prove
that the unborn aren't human beings?
Fertilized eggs to make a cake, really? Do you not understand that
the eggs you use for baking haven't been fertilized? You're making
this too easy.
www.anekant.org/eggs.htm
http://gworrell.freeyellow.com/chickenfaq.html
An acorn isn't an oak tree but it is an oak. All your statement
proves is that a human embryo isn't a human adult. An oak seedling
isn't an oak tree either but its still an oak just like an infant is a
human being.
Your sad attempts to prove that the unborn aren't human beings have
failed. One day you'll get around to recognizing the scientific fact
that the unborn are human beings.
.
|
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
21 Jun 2004 02:10:45 PM |
|
|
"david" <gringo98@aol.com> wrote in message
news:279983a8.0406160603.5d9cc9ad@posting.google.com...
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:<aHIzc.27207$Hg2.26881@attbi_s04>...
We now know of several instances of medical chimeras - that is to say,
single individuals who are the product of two perfectly normal embryos
fusing by accident early in gestation. These individuals can develop
quite
normally - in fact one Brazilian woman wasn't discovered to be a chimera
until she was going to have surgery and blood tests "proved" that she
couldn't be the mother of the children she had given birth to.
So here we have two human beings, according to you. No genetic
abnormalities in either of them. Neither of them died. Not one single
cell
of either ceased to exist. Where, then, did one of those human beings
go?
*Which* one went away? How do you know?
Isn't it far more reasonable to recognize that embryos are nature's
attempts
at making a human being but not human beings yet? Just like acorns are
not
oak trees, and when I use fertilized eggs to make a cake, I'm not having
chicken for dessert.
Two human beings according to me? Since when? You are again making
up a position for me and then arguing against it.
Sorry, I thought you were arguing that embryos are human beings.
It seems that in
the chimera case described above (an actual link or reference would be
nice) two human beings came together to form one human being.
Um. Are you or aren't you arguing that embryos are human beings? You seem
to be confused. But in any case, human beings cannot merge with each other.
Nor can dogs, monkeys, horses or any other mammal.
Link? Sure:
'We studied a very unusual tetragametic phenotypically normal and fertile
46,XX Caucasian female, who was identified because her blood HLA typing
showed what appeared at first to be maternal exclusion of two of her three
children...The case reported here represents the first report of body
chimerism in a phenotypically normal and fertile XX female, resulting from a
fusion of two fertilized eggs.'
www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp12proc/ contents/yunis.pdf
'The January 15 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine carries a
report of an infant produced by in vitro fertilization who was discovered to
have one ovary and one testis. Genetic investigation revealed the child to
have two cell lines, one 46 XX (female-typical) and one 46 XY
(male-typical). The presence in one individual of cells derived from
different conceptuses is called "chimerism," after the mythical Greek
monster. Because IVF implantations have a low success rate, it is common
practice to implant multiple conceptuses to increase the likelihood of
pregnancy; in this case two conceptuses amalgamated to form a single
individual.'
http://www.isna.org/pr/pr1-15-98.html
Or: N Engl J Med. 1998 Jan 15;338(3):166-9.
A true hermaphrodite chimera resulting from embryo amalgamation after in
vitro fertilization.
Strain L, Dean JC, Hamilton MP, Bonthron DT.
Human Genetics Unit, University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital,
United Kingdom.
Those
are the facts of science. It happens.
Sure, it happens to embryonic, that is pre-human beings, pre-mice,
pre-horses and so forth with all other mammals. It does not happen to
actual human beings, mice, horses, etc.
Twinning
and chimeras are rare things that happen in the development of human
beings that most of society is unfamiliar with but how does that prove
that the unborn aren't human beings?
Because things that happen in the development of human beings do not happen
to actual human beings. That is how chimerism and twinning illustrate that
embryos are not yet actual human beings. They are a developmental stage on
the way to a human being, but their plasticity proves that they are still
among the starter stages.
Fertilized eggs to make a cake, really? Do you not understand that
the eggs you use for baking haven't been fertilized?
Yes, they have.
An acorn isn't an oak tree but it is an oak.
It's an oak embryo. It is "oak" the same way a human embryo is "human" but
not a human being. When you say "oak" as a noun you mean "tree".
All your statement
proves is that a human embryo isn't a human adult. An oak seedling
isn't an oak tree either but its still an oak just like an infant is a
human being.
It's not "an oak". It's still a shot at an oak tree, just like an embryo is
a shot at a human being. You cannot mow down an oak tree when you mow your
lawn. You can mow down an oak cotyledon or seedling, which means it's a
stage in the development of an oak tree but is not "an oak" yet. (Tell a
real estate agent "I have several oaks in my backyard" and they are not
going to think you mean seedlings. If you explain that you have several
seedlings an inch tall they will understand that you are either a simpleton
or a liar and will kindly explain to you that if you include "several oaks
in back yard" on the property listing you might get sued.)
A human infant is "a human being" because it is an independent organism,
metabolically living on its own, forming relationships, learning, accruing
psychological experiences. It's a member of society. However, one could
argue that more is required to become a human being. Jews, for instance,
traditionally don't have a funeral for a newborn (less than 30 days old)
because it takes 30 days to be sure that it's a viable human being and valid
member of the society. These are social, cultural, religious and/or legal
questions, not scientific ones, so different societies, cultures, religions
and laws can differ. Same thing at the end of life: is a brain-dead person
"dead" or "alive"? It's not a scientific question.
Your sad attempts to prove that the unborn aren't human beings have
failed. One day you'll get around to recognizing the scientific fact
that the unborn are human beings.
Translation: "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts."
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
22 Jun 2004 08:50:46 AM |
|
|
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<VoGBc.86466$HG.42807@attbi_s53>...
"david" <gringo98@aol.com> wrote in message
news:279983a8.0406160603.5d9cc9ad@posting.google.com...
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:<aHIzc.27207$Hg2.26881@attbi_s04>...
We now know of several instances of medical chimeras - that is to say,
single individuals who are the product of two perfectly normal embryos
fusing by accident early in gestation. These individuals can develop
quite
normally - in fact one Brazilian woman wasn't discovered to be a chimera
until she was going to have surgery and blood tests "proved" that she
couldn't be the mother of the children she had given birth to.
So here we have two human beings, according to you. No genetic
abnormalities in either of them. Neither of them died. Not one single
cell
of either ceased to exist. Where, then, did one of those human beings
go?
*Which* one went away? How do you know?
Isn't it far more reasonable to recognize that embryos are nature's
attempts
at making a human being but not human beings yet? Just like acorns are
not
oak trees, and when I use fertilized eggs to make a cake, I'm not having
chicken for dessert.
Two human beings according to me? Since when? You are again making
up a position for me and then arguing against it.
Sorry, I thought you were arguing that embryos are human beings.
Embryos are human beings - your above post seemed to imply that a
chimera was currently two human beings - I apologize if I
misintrepreted your post. I would say that it seems that two human
embryos came together to form one human embryo.
How does that prove that human embryos aren't human beings?
It seems that in
the chimera case described above (an actual link or reference would be
nice) two human beings came together to form one human being.
Um. Are you or aren't you arguing that embryos are human beings? You seem
to be confused. But in any case, human beings cannot merge with each other.
Nor can dogs, monkeys, horses or any other mammal.
Why can't human beings merge with each other? That's an assertion
that has no basis in fact - you are again assuming that embryos aren't
human beings instead of proving it. How does it follow that because
two human embryos can become one human embryo, that the human embryo
isn't a human being? It clearly doesn't make any logical sense unless
you are assuming that the embryo isn't a human being.
Link? Sure:
'We studied a very unusual tetragametic phenotypically normal and fertile
46,XX Caucasian female, who was identified because her blood HLA typing
showed what appeared at first to be maternal exclusion of two of her three
children...The case reported here represents the first report of body
chimerism in a phenotypically normal and fertile XX female, resulting from a
fusion of two fertilized eggs.'
www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp12proc/ contents/yunis.pdf
'The January 15 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine carries a
report of an infant produced by in vitro fertilization who was discovered to
have one ovary and one testis. Genetic investigation revealed the child to
have two cell lines, one 46 XX (female-typical) and one 46 XY
(male-typical). The presence in one individual of cells derived from
different conceptuses is called "chimerism," after the mythical Greek
monster. Because IVF implantations have a low success rate, it is common
practice to implant multiple conceptuses to increase the likelihood of
pregnancy; in this case two conceptuses amalgamated to form a single
individual.'
http://www.isna.org/pr/pr1-15-98.html
Or: N Engl J Med. 1998 Jan 15;338(3):166-9.
A true hermaphrodite chimera resulting from embryo amalgamation after in
vitro fertilization.
Strain L, Dean JC, Hamilton MP, Bonthron DT.
Human Genetics Unit, University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital,
United Kingdom.
Those
are the facts of science. It happens.
Sure, it happens to embryonic, that is pre-human beings, pre-mice,
pre-horses and so forth with all other mammals. It does not happen to
actual human beings, mice, horses, etc.
Another assertion not based in fact but in your opinion and your
arbitrary criteria. Your above post said exactly what I thought - two
embryos become one embryo. How does this prove that the unborn are
human beings? Plus - if the ability of two embryos to form one embryo
is what disqualifies them from being human beings then wouldn't it
follow that fetuses are human beings because as for as I am aware two
fetuses cannot join together to form one fetus.
Twinning
and chimeras are rare things that happen in the development of human
beings that most of society is unfamiliar with but how does that prove
that the unborn aren't human beings?
Because things that happen in the development of human beings do not happen
to actual human beings. That is how chimerism and twinning illustrate that
embryos are not yet actual human beings. They are a developmental stage on
the way to a human being, but their plasticity proves that they are still
among the starter stages.
You again assume the position you need to prove. Over and over again.
You can't prove the unborn aren't human beings or organism -
something you tried to do in previous posts and then ran away when I
showed how your "evidence" was just more of your arbitrary assertions
based in your own opinion with no actual evidence. They are
developing human beings not developing into human beings. Infants,
adolscents are still developing - just because something is developing
doesn't mean it isn't a human being -
Fertilized eggs to make a cake, really? Do you not understand that
the eggs you use for baking haven't been fertilized?
Yes, they have.
An acorn isn't an oak tree but it is an oak.
It's an oak embryo. It is "oak" the same way a human embryo is "human" but
not a human being. When you say "oak" as a noun you mean "tree".
So ok - the acorn isn't an oak tree - just like an embryo isn't an
adult human - your point?
All your statement
proves is that a human embryo isn't a human adult. An oak seedling
isn't an oak tree either but its still an oak just like an infant is a
human being.
It's not "an oak". It's still a shot at an oak tree, just like an embryo is
a shot at a human being. You cannot mow down an oak tree when you mow your
lawn. You can mow down an oak cotyledon or seedling, which means it's a
stage in the development of an oak tree but is not "an oak" yet. (Tell a
real estate agent "I have several oaks in my backyard" and they are not
going to think you mean seedlings. If you explain that you have several
seedlings an inch tall they will understand that you are either a simpleton
or a liar and will kindly explain to you that if you include "several oaks
in back yard" on the property listing you might get sued.)
More assertions - I'm beginning to tire of them now. It is an oak
just not an oak tree - using different names to describe the stages of
an entity doesn't change the species of that entity - I would probably
say that I had oak seedlings - this doesn't mean they aren't oak - you
know this. They aren't oak trees but that doesn't mean they aren't
oaks.
A human infant is "a human being" because it is an independent organism,
metabolically living on its own, forming relationships, learning, accruing
psychological experiences. It's a member of society. However, one could
argue that more is required to become a human being. Jews, for instance,
traditionally don't have a funeral for a newborn (less than 30 days old)
because it takes 30 days to be sure that it's a viable human being and valid
member of the society. These are social, cultural, religious and/or legal
questions, not scientific ones, so different societies, cultures, religions
and laws can differ. Same thing at the end of life: is a brain-dead person
"dead" or "alive"? It's not a scientific question.
More and more assertions - why can't you come up with evidence that
backs your assertions regarding what an organism or a human being are?
All you have is your own assertions - nothing from science or logic
just assertions -
Why'd you run away from the conjoined twin discussion? Remember when
your wholly arbitrary asserted criteria informed me that conjoined
twins were one organism but two human beings - remember -
Your sad attempts to prove that the unborn aren't human beings have
failed. One day you'll get around to recognizing the scientific fact
that the unborn are human beings.
Translation: "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts."
Are you quoting yourself there - I've provided facts - quotes from
textbooks and experts on the subjects - you've quoted yourself -
You haven't provided any facts that would lead me to believe the
unborn aren't human beings - you've merely asserted over and over
again that they aren't -
.
|
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
22 Jun 2004 10:39:26 AM |
|
|
"david" <gringo98@aol.com> wrote in message
news:279983a8.0406220550.2e9d4196@posting.google.com...
Why can't human beings merge with each other? That's an assertion
that has no basis in fact -
Okay. You provide one example from the biomedical literature (NOT your
handpicked 1981 anti-abortion congressional hearing testimony and NOT
bioethical or philosophical opinion journals) of two human beings merging
into one, with neither one dying or having a single cell disappear. I sure
can't find one but perhaps you can.
Are you perhaps still unsure of the difference between the noun "human
being" (=person, =individual, born, living member of the species - a
definition that includes plants and animals without a personal self) and the
adjective "human"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
23 Jun 2004 02:37:44 PM |
|
|
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<OoYBc.89155$HG.34441@attbi_s53>...
"david" <gringo98@aol.com> wrote in message
news:279983a8.0406220550.2e9d4196@posting.google.com...
Why can't human beings merge with each other? That's an assertion
that has no basis in fact -
Okay. You provide one example from the biomedical literature (NOT your
handpicked 1981 anti-abortion congressional hearing testimony and NOT
bioethical or philosophical opinion journals) of two human beings merging
into one, with neither one dying or having a single cell disappear. I sure
can't find one but perhaps you can.
The fact that chimeras occur shows that human embryos can merge to
become one human embryo.
Are you perhaps still unsure of the difference between the noun "human
being" (=person, =individual, born, living member of the species - a
definition that includes plants and animals without a personal self) and the
adjective "human"?
So human infants aren't human beings? Just because an adjective is
used to describe what kind of stage a human being is in doesn't mean
that it isn't a human (noun). Human with regards to embryo is an
adjective describing what type of embryo it is. It is a human embryo.
Not a rat embryo, not a kangaroo embryo - it is a HUMAN embryo.
Embryos are organisms - so they are human organisms or in other words
- human beings - member of the species - homo sapiens - am I ringing
any bells -
What something is biologically can be found out be using biology not
legal definitions or your assertions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
23 Jun 2004 06:50:47 PM |
|
|
On 23 Jun 2004 12:37:44 -0700, (david) wrote:
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote...
"david" < > wrote...
Why can't human beings merge with each other? That's an assertion
that has no basis in fact -
Okay. You provide one example from the biomedical literature (NOT your
handpicked 1981 anti-abortion congressional hearing testimony and NOT
bioethical or philosophical opinion journals) of two human beings merging
into one, with neither one dying or having a single cell disappear. I sure
can't find one but perhaps you can.
The fact that chimeras occur shows that human embryos can merge to
become one human embryo.
The request is for human beings merging, not human embryos.
Are you perhaps still unsure of the difference between the noun "human
being" (=person, =individual, born, living member of the species - a
definition that includes plants and animals without a personal self) and the
adjective "human"?
So human infants aren't human beings?
Infants are a subset of children which are a subset of persons / human
beings. Human beings are that which are born, human, and alive.
Just because an adjective is
used to describe what kind of stage a human being is in doesn't mean
that it isn't a human (noun). Human with regards to embryo is an
adjective describing what type of embryo it is. It is a human embryo.
Not a rat embryo, not a kangaroo embryo - it is a HUMAN embryo.
Right, but not a human being.
Embryos are organisms....
No. An organism is "2. (Biol.) An organized being; a living body,
either vegetable or animal, compozed of different organs or parts with
functions which are separate, but mutually dependent, and essential to
the life of the individual." --
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=organism
A human embryo is a mutually interactive and dependent part of a
pregnant woman.
- so they are human organisms or in other words
- human beings - member of the species - homo sapiens - am I ringing
any bells -
What something is biologically can be found out be using biology not
legal definitions or your assertions.
So post the *biological* definition of "a human being." Please do not
regurgitate examples of people calling things developing or beginning
of or other vagueness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
25 Jun 2004 01:21:51 PM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40da13fa.85136459@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 23 Jun 2004 12:37:44 -0700, (david) wrote:
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote...
"david" < > wrote...
Why can't human beings merge with each other? That's an assertion
that has no basis in fact -
Okay. You provide one example from the biomedical literature (NOT your
handpicked 1981 anti-abortion congressional hearing testimony and NOT
bioethical or philosophical opinion journals) of two human beings merging
into one, with neither one dying or having a single cell disappear. I sure
can't find one but perhaps you can.
The fact that chimeras occur shows that human embryos can merge to
become one human embryo.
The request is for human beings merging, not human embryos.
What I find funny about you Paul is that it seems you don't respond to
my responses to your arguments. You then post in response to my
argument to someone else but when I respond to you. Nothing.
You are assuming that human embryos aren't human beings - my guess is
that most information about chimeras would use the term embryo when
discussing the human embryos that merge -
Are you perhaps still unsure of the difference between the noun "human
being" (=person, =individual, born, living member of the species - a
definition that includes plants and animals without a personal self) and the
adjective "human"?
So human infants aren't human beings?
Infants are a subset of children which are a subset of persons / human
beings. Human beings are that which are born, human, and alive.
Nice one sentence assertions but you act like person and human being
are the exact same thing. This is a mistake. For example - most
people would say that if intelligent extra-terrestials existed they
would be "persons" while they wouldn't be human beings.
Person is a philosophical based assertion in arbitrary criteria while
what type of species something is (say human being) is a question of
biology - that can be discovered by using science.
Just because an adjective is
used to describe what kind of stage a human being is in doesn't mean
that it isn't a human (noun). Human with regards to embryo is an
adjective describing what type of embryo it is. It is a human embryo.
Not a rat embryo, not a kangaroo embryo - it is a HUMAN embryo.
Right, but not a human being.
Embryos are organisms....
No. An organism is "2. (Biol.) An organized being; a living body,
either vegetable or animal, compozed of different organs or parts with
functions which are separate, but mutually dependent, and essential to
the life of the individual." --
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=organism
Is that supposed to help your cause? - it says that the ORGANS are
mutually dependent- did you actually read it - an embryo has organs or
parts with functions which are separate, but mutually dependent and
essential to his or her life-
I know how much you like dictionary definitions so I thought I supply
some of my own.
From http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/73/e0107300.html
Embryo -An organism in its early stages of development, especially
before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form. b. An
organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching.
From www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=embryo
Embryo: a vertebrate at any stage of development prior to birth or
hatching b : an animal in the early stages of growth and
differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of
fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ
systems; especially : the developing human individual from the time of
implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception
From www.onelook.com/?w=embryo&ls=a
Embryo: an animal organism in the early stages of growth and
differentiation that in higher forms merge into fetal stages but in
lower forms terminate in commencement of larval life
From www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=embryo&matchtype=exact
Embryo: an organism in its earliest stage or stages of development and
in a rudimentary or early form.
These are so easy to find. Do you want some more? My guess is you
won't respond to this post either.
A human embryo is a mutually interactive and dependent part of a
pregnant woman.
So the pregnant woman would then also be mutually dependent on the
embryo to survive? That's what mutually means, Paul. But somehow
more than a million women a year aren't dying after their abortions.
Your argument and you're misguided attempt to skew it to your needs
have failed horribly.
So pregnant women have 2 brains, two sets of unique DNA, two
heartbeats, four arms, four legs, etc. etc. ?
- so they are human organisms or in other words
- human beings - member of the species - homo sapiens - am I ringing
any bells -
What something is biologically can be found out be using biology not
legal definitions or your assertions.
So post the *biological* definition of "a human being." Please do not
regurgitate examples of people calling things developing or beginning
of or other vagueness.
An organism that is human. Not tough. Human embryos are organisms as
your and my definitions clearly show and they are human. You want
anything else.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
25 Jun 2004 03:09:46 PM |
|
|
On 25 Jun 2004 11:21:51 -0700, (david) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote...
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote...
"david" < > wrote...
Why can't human beings merge with each other? That's an assertion
that has no basis in fact -
Okay. You provide one example from the biomedical literature (NOT your
handpicked 1981 anti-abortion congressional hearing testimony and NOT
bioethical or philosophical opinion journals) of two human beings merging
into one, with neither one dying or having a single cell disappear. I sure
can't find one but perhaps you can.
The fact that chimeras occur shows that human embryos can merge to
become one human embryo.
The request is for human beings merging, not human embryos.
What I find funny about you Paul is that it seems you don't respond to
my responses to your arguments. You then post in response to my
argument to someone else but when I respond to you. Nothing.
Generally your responses are so inane as to not warrant a response.
to wit:
You are assuming that human embryos aren't human beings
I am not making any such assumption. A human being is that which is
born, human, and alive. Pro-Lifers have not provided any new
definition includes embryos while not including things not considered
to be human beings and not excluding things considered to be human
beings.
Are you perhaps still unsure of the difference between the noun "human
being" (=person, =individual, born, living member of the species - a
definition that includes plants and animals without a personal self) and the
adjective "human"?
So human infants aren't human beings?
Infants are a subset of children which are a subset of persons / human
beings. Human beings are that which are born, human, and alive.
Nice one sentence assertions but you act like person and human being
are the exact same thing. This is a mistake. For example - most
people would say that if intelligent extra-terrestials existed they
would be "persons" while they wouldn't be human beings.
See. More inane responses. We are talking about the sub-set of
persons that are natural persons AKA human beings.
Person is a philosophical based assertion in arbitrary criteria while
what type of species something is (say human being) is a question of
biology - that can be discovered by using science.
Inane comment. There is no biological definition for the noun
"being."
Just because an adjective is
used to describe what kind of stage a human being is in doesn't mean
that it isn't a human (noun). Human with regards to embryo is an
adjective describing what type of embryo it is. It is a human embryo.
Not a rat embryo, not a kangaroo embryo - it is a HUMAN embryo.
Right, but not a human being.
Embryos are organisms....
No. An organism is "2. (Biol.) An organized being; a living body,
either vegetable or animal, compozed of different organs or parts with
functions which are separate, but mutually dependent, and essential to
the life of the individual." --
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=organism
Is that supposed to help your cause?
I do not have a cause, you do. I am perfectly willing to ban all
abortions, given just reasons. Just reasons cannot include
falsehoods. Your claim is that the embryo is an organism. Looking at
what is meant by the term 'organism' it is obvious that the embryo is
not one. It is not an organized being but is, in fact, an interactive
part of the pregnant woman.
.....
Embryo -An organism in its early stages of development....
Embryo: a vertebrate at any stage of development....
Embryo: an animal organism in the early stages of growth ....
Embryo: an organism in its earliest stage or stages of development ....
Now look up prolepsis, which is what the above are. An embryo still
does not meet the definition for an organism.
A human embryo is a mutually interactive and dependent part of a
pregnant woman.
So the pregnant woman would then also be mutually dependent on the
embryo to survive? ....
Without the embryo/fetus she is not a pregnant woman.
A hand is a part of a human organism even tho' that organism can
survive quite well without a hand. The fact remains that the embryo
is an interactive part of a pregnant woman.
So pregnant women have 2 brains, two sets of unique DNA, two
heartbeats, four arms, four legs, etc. etc. ?
See -- more inane remarks. None of those things make the woman not a
single organism.
- so they are human organisms or in other words
- human beings - member of the species - homo sapiens - am I ringing
any bells -
What something is biologically can be found out be using biology not
legal definitions or your assertions.
So post the *biological* definition of "a human being." Please do not
regurgitate examples of people calling things developing or beginning
of or other vagueness.
An organism that is human. Not tough. Human embryos are organisms as
your and my definitions clearly show and they are human. You want
anything else.
First, embryos are not organisms. Second, HeLa is. Your definition
fails to include the embryo as a human being - and - includes a
human organism that is clearly not a human being.
.
|
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
28 Jun 2004 09:14:51 PM |
|
|
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dc8147.51027305@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On 25 Jun 2004 11:21:51 -0700, (david) wrote:
An organism that is human. Not tough. Human embryos are organisms as
your and my definitions clearly show and they are human. You want
anything else.
First, embryos are not organisms. Second, HeLa is. Your definition
fails to include the embryo as a human being - and - includes a
human organism that is clearly not a human being.
Strange how David didn't reply to this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
29 Jun 2004 03:10:19 PM |
|
|
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<vg4Ec.108385$2i5.40974@attbi_s52>...
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dc8147.51027305@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On 25 Jun 2004 11:21:51 -0700, (david) wrote:
An organism that is human. Not tough. Human embryos are organisms as
your and my definitions clearly show and they are human. You want
anything else.
First, embryos are not organisms. Second, HeLa is. Your definition
fails to include the embryo as a human being - and - includes a
human organism that is clearly not a human being.
Strange how David didn't reply to this.
Sorry I don't respond as quickly as you'd like - my life doesn't
revolve around arguing with people like Paul who just deny any
evidence that proves them wrong.
But I thought you were done with me. You want some more? Maybe
you'll come back with some actual evidence that the unborn aren't
organisms instead of asserting it over and over again. Spend a few
more hours in the library and maybe you'll find something.
Why can't you accept something that is plainly a fact. Embryology
textbooks, respected online dictionaries, and even Planned Parenthood,
America's #1 abortion provider says that the unborn are organisms -
why can't you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
30 Jun 2004 01:31:46 AM |
|
|
david <> wrote:
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<vg4Ec.108385$2i5.40974@attbi_s52>...
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dc8147.51027305@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On 25 Jun 2004 11:21:51 -0700, (david) wrote:
An organism that is human. Not tough. Human embryos are organisms as
your and my definitions clearly show and they are human. You want
anything else.
First, embryos are not organisms. Second, HeLa is. Your definition
fails to include the embryo as a human being - and - includes a
human organism that is clearly not a human being.
Strange how David didn't reply to this.
Sorry I don't respond as quickly as you'd like - my life doesn't
revolve around arguing with people like Paul who just deny any
evidence that proves them wrong.
Apparently you don't respond at all when reality intrudes upon your
delusions. Depite the many words you use, there is not one response
to Paul's comments.
But I thought you were done with me. You want some more? Maybe
you'll come back with some actual evidence that the unborn aren't
organisms instead of asserting it over and over again. Spend a few
more hours in the library and maybe you'll find something.
Why can't you accept something that is plainly a fact. Embryology
textbooks, respected online dictionaries, and even Planned Parenthood,
America's #1 abortion provider says that the unborn are organisms -
why can't you?
Because they don't say what you claim. Because you're an illiterate
fanatic who doesn't understand what he sees.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
30 Jun 2004 01:32:39 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<cbtmoh$snr$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
david < > wrote:
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<vg4Ec.108385$2i5.40974@attbi_s52>...
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dc8147.51027305@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On 25 Jun 2004 11:21:51 -0700, (david) wrote:
An organism that is human. Not tough. Human embryos are organisms as
your and my definitions clearly show and they are human. You want
anything else.
First, embryos are not organisms. Second, HeLa is. Your definition
fails to include the embryo as a human being - and - includes a
human organism that is clearly not a human being.
Strange how David didn't reply to this.
Sorry I don't respond as quickly as you'd like - my life doesn't
revolve around arguing with people like Paul who just deny any
evidence that proves them wrong.
Apparently you don't respond at all when reality intrudes upon your
delusions. Depite the many words you use, there is not one response
to Paul's comments.
I usually don't waste my time responding to off-his-rocker Ray but
here goes.
Check my reply to Paul. I replied to Malapert not Paul because it was
her post. In my reply to Paul I replied - guess what? That's right -
to Paul. Why do you feel the need to embarass yourself over and over
again.
But I thought you were done with me. You want some more? Maybe
you'll come back with some actual evidence that the unborn aren't
organisms instead of asserting it over and over again. Spend a few
more hours in the library and maybe you'll find something.
Why can't you accept something that is plainly a fact. Embryology
textbooks, respected online dictionaries, and even Planned Parenthood,
America's #1 abortion provider says that the unborn are organisms -
why can't you?
Because they don't say what you claim. Because you're an illiterate
fanatic who doesn't understand what he sees.
Your ridiculous assertions never cease to amaze me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
30 Jun 2004 07:44:58 PM |
|
|
david <> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<cbtmoh$snr$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
david < > wrote:
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<vg4Ec.108385$2i5.40974@attbi_s52>...
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40dc8147.51027305@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On 25 Jun 2004 11:21:51 -0700, (david) wrote:
An organism that is human. Not tough. Human embryos are organisms as
your and my definitions clearly show and they are human. You want
anything else.
First, embryos are not organisms. Second, HeLa is. Your definition
fails to include the embryo as a human being - and - includes a
human organism that is clearly not a human being.
Strange how David didn't reply to this.
Sorry I don't respond as quickly as you'd like - my life doesn't
revolve around arguing with people like Paul who just deny any
evidence that proves them wrong.
Apparently you don't respond at all when reality intrudes upon your
delusions. Depite the many words you use, there is not one response
to Paul's comments.
I usually don't waste my time responding to off-his-rocker Ray but
here goes.
Check my reply to Paul.
More words - no response.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
29 Jun 2004 02:55:10 PM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40dc8147.51027305@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 25 Jun 2004 11:21:51 -0700, (david) wrote:
(Paul Anderson) wrote...
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote...
"david" < > wrote...
Why can't human beings merge with each other? That's an assertion
that has no basis in fact -
Okay. You provide one example from the biomedical literature (NOT your
handpicked 1981 anti-abortion congressional hearing testimony and NOT
bioethical or philosophical opinion journals) of two human beings merging
into one, with neither one dying or having a single cell disappear. I sure
can't find one but perhaps you can.
The fact that chimeras occur shows that human embryos can merge to
become one human embryo.
The request is for human beings merging, not human embryos.
What I find funny about you Paul is that it seems you don't respond to
my responses to your arguments. You then post in response to my
argument to someone else but when I respond to you. Nothing.
Generally your responses are so inane as to not warrant a response.
to wit:
You are assuming that human embryos aren't human beings
I am not making any such assumption. A human being is that which is
born, human, and alive. Pro-Lifers have not provided any new
definition includes embryos while not including things not considered
to be human beings and not excluding things considered to be human
beings.
Really? Do you have any science to back that up or are you just
randomly asserting your own ignorant criteria?
Are you perhaps still unsure of the difference between the noun "human
being" (=person, =individual, born, living member of the species - a
definition that includes plants and animals without a personal self) and the
adjective "human"?
So human infants aren't human beings?
Infants are a subset of children which are a subset of persons / human
beings. Human beings are that which are born, human, and alive.
Nice one sentence assertions but you act like person and human being
are the exact same thing. This is a mistake. For example - most
people would say that if intelligent extra-terrestials existed they
would be "persons" while they wouldn't be human beings.
See. More inane responses. We are talking about the sub-set of
persons that are natural persons AKA human beings.
How is it innane? Do you not understand that your one sentence
assertions aren't evidence? It's like someone saying that
African-Americans aren't human beings because their skin is darker
than mine. Stop asserting positions and start trying to prove them
with evidence. You probably won't because your "evidence" just showed
how wrong you were.
Person is a philosophical based assertion in arbitrary criteria while
what type of species something is (say human being) is a question of
biology - that can be discovered by using science.
Inane comment. There is no biological definition for the noun
"being."
You are joke. How is my comment innane? How is what something is not
a question for biology?
Just because an adjective is
used to describe what kind of stage a human being is in doesn't mean
that it isn't a human (noun). Human with regards to embryo is an
adjective describing what type of embryo it is. It is a human embryo.
Not a rat embryo, not a kangaroo embryo - it is a HUMAN embryo.
Right, but not a human being.
Embryos are organisms....
No. An organism is "2. (Biol.) An organized being; a living body,
either vegetable or animal, compozed of different organs or parts with
functions which are separate, but mutually dependent, and essential to
the life of the individual." --
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=organism
Is that supposed to help your cause?
I do not have a cause, you do. I am perfectly willing to ban all
abortions, given just reasons. Just reasons cannot include
falsehoods. Your claim is that the embryo is an organism. Looking at
what is meant by the term 'organism' it is obvious that the embryo is
not one. It is not an organized being but is, in fact, an interactive
part of the pregnant woman.
Why'd you cut my post? Why do you feel the need to do that? Why
can't you argue without cutting up and deleting my arguments?
Your definition obviously doesn't prove the unborn aren't organism -
they have organs/parts with functions which are separate but mutually
dependent.
....
Embryo -An organism in its early stages of development....
Embryo: a vertebrate at any stage of development....
Embryo: an animal organism in the early stages of growth ....
Embryo: an organism in its earliest stage or stages of development ....
Now look up prolepsis, which is what the above are. An embryo still
does not meet the definition for an organism.
LOL. Nice cut job. I love how when pcers are confronted with things
they don't like they simply cut them.
Is that your argument? I provided your coveted dictionary definitions
for what an embryo is and you just say that it isn't an organism when
dictionaries clearly define it so.
Prolepsis - the representation or assumption of a future act or
development as if presently existing or accomplished b : the
application of an adjective to a noun in anticipation of the result of
the action of the verb
A human embryo is a mutually interactive and dependent part of a
pregnant woman.
So the pregnant woman would then also be mutually dependent on the
embryo to survive? ....
Without the embryo/fetus she is not a pregnant woman.
A hand is a part of a human organism even tho' that organism can
survive quite well without a hand. The fact remains that the embryo
is an interactive part of a pregnant woman.
So pregnant women have 2 brains, two sets of unique DNA, two
heartbeats, four arms, four legs, etc. etc. ?
See -- more inane remarks. None of those things make the woman not a
single organism.
How is that innane? Is that all you can say when your arguments are
turned on their head? Why didn't you answer the question? Does a
pregnant woman have 2 brains, two sets of unique DNA, two heartbeats,
four arms, four legs, etc. etc.?
Do some pregnant women have penises?
- so they are human organisms or in other words
- human beings - member of the species - homo sapiens - am I ringing
any bells -
What something is biologically can be found out be using biology not
legal definitions or your assertions.
So post the *biological* definition of "a human being." Please do not
regurgitate examples of people calling things developing or beginning
of or other vagueness.
An organism that is human. Not tough. Human embryos are organisms as
your and my definitions clearly show and they are human. You want
anything else.
First, embryos are not organisms. Second, HeLa is. Your definition
fails to include the embryo as a human being - and - includes a
human organism that is clearly not a human being.
Nice assertions. Gosh. You don't have a single argument. You say
that the unborn aren't organisms because you have trouble
understanding one dictionary definition and deny my definitions that
clearly say that embryos are organisms. I almost feel sorry for your
lack of evidence and your complete inability to form an argument.
How is a HeLa an organism? MW defines Hela as 'a cell of a
continuously cultured strain isolated from a human uterine cervical
carcinoma in 1951 and used in biomedical research especially to
culture viruses"
A cell - not an organism. Sad, Paul, just sad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
29 Jun 2004 04:03:05 PM |
|
|
On 29 Jun 2004 12:55:10 -0700, (david) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote....
You are assuming that human embryos aren't human beings
I am not making any such assumption. A human being is that which is
born, human, and alive. Pro-Lifers have not provided any new
definition includes embryos while not including things not considered
to be human beings and not excluding things considered to be human
beings.
Really? Do you have any science to back that up or are you just
randomly asserting your own ignorant criteria?
You cannot provide a new definition so you attack me. It is not my
criteria. I have looked and I have found that tradition, language,
religion and law agrees with a human being being defined as that
which is born, human, and alive.
Are you perhaps still unsure of the difference between the noun "human
being" (=person, =individual, born, living member of the species - a
definition that includes plants and animals without a personal self) and the
adjective "human"?
So human infants aren't human beings?
Infants are a subset of children which are a subset of persons / human
beings. Human beings are that which are born, human, and alive.
Nice one sentence assertions but you act like person and human being
are the exact same thing. This is a mistake. For example - most
people would say that if intelligent extra-terrestials existed they
would be "persons" while they wouldn't be human beings.
See. More inane responses. We are talking about the sub-set of
persons that are natural persons AKA human beings.
How is it innane? Do you not understand that your one sentence
assertions aren't evidence? It's like someone saying that
African-Americans aren't human beings because their skin is darker
than mine. Stop asserting positions and start trying to prove them
with evidence. You probably won't because your "evidence" just showed
how wrong you were.
What does that crap have to do with the fact that we were talking
about human beings and you tossed in persona and BEMs from outer
space.
Person is a philosophical based assertion in arbitrary criteria while
what type of species something is (say human being) is a question of
biology - that can be discovered by using science.
Inane comment. There is no biological definition for the noun
"being."
You are joke. How is my comment innane? How is what something is not
a question for biology?
There is no biological definition for the noun "being."
Proving that a human fetus is a human fetus is meaningless.
Just because an adjective is
used to describe what kind of stage a human being is in doesn't mean
that it isn't a human (noun). Human with regards to embryo is an
adjective describing what type of embryo it is. It is a human embryo.
Not a rat embryo, not a kangaroo embryo - it is a HUMAN embryo.
Right, but not a human being.
Embryos are organisms....
No. An organism is "2. (Biol.) An organized being; a living body,
either vegetable or animal, compozed of different organs or parts with
functions which | | | | | | | | | | | |
